|
The VASSP 2009 Annual Conference was held in Melbourne on 17-18 August at the Jasper Hotel. Conference Theme: Yes we can! The report from the conference will be published here over the next few days, as the presenters provide material and as the session notes are added. Chris Bonnor's keynote address is there now! Plus the Minister's address and Rosalyn Black's address and presentation. A gallery of photographs from the conference is available - 60 photos.
Keynote Addresses:- Ministerial Address - Bronwyn Pike, Minister for Education, Victoria. Session notes.
- The Changing Contexts for Public Education - Chris Bonnor. The text of his address is published below - click here. Presentation (3.02Mb pdf file).
Concurrent Workshops:- How to Use the New Web Technology in Your School - Peter MacLean and Scott Nugent, Wodonga Senior Secondary College. Presentation (428Kb pdf file).
- How to Position Yourself to Be the Best Assistant Principal Possible - Michael Fitzgerald, Principal of Heathmont College, and Robyn Buckeridge, VASSP Field Officer. Presentation (372Kb pdf file).
- Ten Top Tips for Assistant Principals -Frank Sal, Principal of Doncaster Secondary College, Michael Phillips, Principal of Ringwood Secondary College, and Gabrielle Leigh, President of the Victorian Principals Association. Presentation (565Kb pdf file).
................................................................................................................. Session 1 – Bronwyn Pike - Ministerial Address
- "Yes we can" was the new rallying call in the USA during the Obama presidential campaign. Led to highest number of young voters ever. Great statement of hope, commitment to renewal, collective statement. “We” was the call. Not “I”.
- “that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can.” = Obama quote.
- I have a similar message for renewal and determination. We can do a lot together to continue to improve education. If we are to achieve, we have to do it together.
- Lots of renewal happening: physical - school fabric – capital works – short time but lots of changes.
- “Big Day In” = focus on school leadership and its role in improvement. Blueprint (http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/directions/blueprint2008/default.htm) = range of initiatives to further development of leaders and aspirants. Then down to quality teaching. 14 August = lots of hands-on work with the instructional leadership model. Renew the passion for teaching.
- Bastow Institute of Educational Leadership in North Melbourne (http://www.education.vic.gov.au/proflearning/bastowinstitute/default.htm). Named after the architect for government schools in the late 1800s. He had a vision for schooling to lift all people. What happens there will be the most important thing. Bruce Armstrong will be the Director of it. Programs of leadership for leaders and aspirants. Out to tender now for the first round of modules.
- New internship program – $2.4 million over the next 3 years – piloting it in schools – to provide high potential aspirants with practical internship and with expert supervision. Starts in 2010.
- Community partnerships – one of the elements of the Blueprint. Education happens all through the community, not just in school. In the past, we have not done enough to help the community to take on their responsibility. Now we need to improve links with families and the community.
- 2 demonstration projects = “out of home care” in Broadmeadows and Dandenong. Provides access to a worker to strengthen the partnerships to help schools and families. The Ultranet will also help (http://www.education.vic.gov.au/management/ultranet/default.htm). Low SES schools in the Commonwealth Partnerships will also help with these projects.
- Thanks for hard work and dedication to future of young people. Extra work and responsibility needed.
.................................................................................................................
Session 2 - Chris Bonnor - The Changing Contexts for Public EducationChris Bonnor, Co-author of 'The Stupid Country - How Australia is dismantling public education', UNSW Press Introduction - some personal contexts
I want to thank Brian and VASSP for inviting me today. I last spoke to a VASSP conference twelve years ago when you met at Warrnambool. At that time I was the final act, so thanks for the promotion. I have fond memories of the conference dinner at the local club ... and also of touring around Brauer College.
For a number of years I worked with Ken Thompson, Debra and others on Principal Matters - and I enjoyed many conversations with people like Ken Fraser and Peter Martin. And, like many others, I've visited Glen Waverley College. It's been good to meet your president, Brian. His contribution, along with that of Andrew Blair to the National Public Education Forum in March was very powerful.
Victoria and school-based management has always held a special fascination for me. Mind you, coming from NSW I was a principal in what some have rather unfairly described as the last Stalinist education system in the world. I'm sure if Brian Caldwell does have a secret list of devolution recalcitrants NSW is probably close to the top. So I marvel at the things that you have been able to achieve when given enough power, or enough rope, depending on how you have individually fared. I could see the buzz principals were getting by being freed of many central controls. You really displayed a "yes we can" response years before it became a mantra.
In NSW I initiated a project which sought to adapt and adopt models in which principals were given far more local authonty - and I choose that word carefully. We sent emissaries across Australia and overseas to see the best. But other things were also happening at around the same time, things which would give us reason to pause. The mounting evidence of growing inequality between schools in a number of jurisdictions where catchment areas were abandoned raised many questions. The evidence came not only from people such as Stephen Lamb here in Melbourne but also from what PISA was telling us about the importance of both quality and equity, and which systems were, and were not, doing both things well.
So there are now two bottom lines for me. Firstly that however we manage schools and systems, increasing the opportunities for, and achievement of, all our kids is central. Secondly, we should be doing this in inclusive schools.
The wider contexts.
These surely are some of the important wider contexts. There are many contexts within which you operate but I think that three are most significant:
Firstly, there is the changing educational context. We work hard to discover and introduce the best in educational and school management practice. It isn't always easy because you have had to keep at least one eye out for the usual quick-fix solutions ... and of course you always need to keep a wary eye on lighthouses. Over my years as a principal I would increasingly come to regard a lighthouse as something that cast a strong beam, which dazzles those far away but is less visible to those nearby.
Secondly there is the political context, including the host of education initiatives otherwise known as 'reforms' and which often conflict with sound educational practice. They actually don't change much over the years as the transition from the Howard to Rudd governments has demonstrated. The hyperbole has certainly ratcheted up: we've transited from reform to revolution. Old ideas are recycled as new people need to get the credit. Did you know, for example, that Bob Carr, a previous NSW premier, single-handedly invented homework?
There is a third context, one we don't deal with at all well, and for many it is slowly undermining your school and public education. We don't have many structures to deal with this third context, some of our professional organizations pretend that it doesn't exist - and governments become hostile or seek distractions whenever we mention it.
It is the archetypical elephant in the room. I refer to the manner in which we provide schools and in particular our framework of public and what we call private schools in this country. It gives underserved credit to call it a framework at all. It is an accumulated and regressive system of ad hoc policies, political deals, neglect and populism, driven by the rhetoric of crisis and also by various bits of discredited ideology such as the free market and of course the twin gods of competition and choice. Not only is it the elephant in the room but as professionals, both individually and in our organizations, we have learned to politely tip-toe around its droppings.
The ideology of the free-market is packaged up in the enticing language of freedom, progress and quality ... and transparency. Choice creates quality because consumers vote with their feet. That's how markets work, so why not for schools? As the narrative goes, pressure is placed on low-demand schools to improve and become more attractive. It still underpins what we do, including and especially the move to league tables.
This free-market with its competition and choice, the policies they have generated and the schools which they have promoted or left behind - form the essence of our current framework. In true stoic fashion you have adjusted to all this, like you adjust to everything else - but often at huge cost. Like many initiatives in education the free-market experiment is an experiment that failed.
Once upon a time ...
We have lived for so long with the frog-marching of our schools into the free-market that you now have to be almost retired to remember when things were different.
Six months ago I attended a school reunion in a delightful town not far over the border. There I was with solicitors and shopkeepers, millionaires and mechanics - a wonderful experience. The school enrolled everyone -I had almost forgotten that my early years were shaped by such places. Those rural comprehensive schools, and you have many in Victoria, were the pioneers of fully inclusive public schooling - and they may also be the last remnants of it.
I eventually became principal of a comprehensive school. I remember the day when the state government dropped a selective school into the next suburb. I soon learned that there is no better way to beggar your school neighbor than to pilfer its most engaged and aspiring learners. But 'the choice will be good for you', the community was told. It was good for a few, but bad for the rest - and that probably sums up the impact of free-market ideology of school competition and choice.
Having lived through this era I've spent the last few years researching how things have changed. There is a lot of evidence to suggest we have made many mistakes, but I'm spooked by this comment [slide of Glass quote] about the lost impact of evidence:
"I truly believed, for a while, that the synthesis of dozens or even hundreds of empirical studies into an aggregated, overall conclusion would command the attention and consent of all sides in a debate ... I rather quickly learned in a decade that no mass of data, regardless of its size or its consistency resolves debates about the best way to educate children. Where education is concerned, the old adage holds true: Facts are negotiable; beliefs are rock solid."
In spite of that I want to present my own scan of the impact of competition and choice on our schools because it explains much bout how we have fared.
It is quite difficult to plot this impact in urban areas, because the urban school marketplace is usually quite complex. More important, there isn't much in the way of data which gives us a good 'before' and 'after' picture. Urban schools have been thrown into the free market for some time now.
However, school competition in rural areas has been relatively recent and it is easier to gain a 'before and after' picture. The impact of competition has also been substantial in some places and almost negligible in others. So we have contrasts across both time and space.
When the free-market comes to town
So which rural schools have faced the blowtorch of competition and how they have they fared? You'll have to forgive me because this next section is very NSW-centric. However, I suspect those of you especially from places such as Bendigo, Wangaratta, Ballarat will quickly relate to what I'm saying.
In inland NSW the schools which now must compete for enrolments are located in or near the big regional centres such as Tamworth, Orange-Bathurst and Wagga. In these places we now see all the features of schooling in urban Australia.
The two or sometimes three public high schools, plus one Catholic school, have now been joined by other private secondary schools. The schools 'compete' in an undeclared and often unspoken competition, conducted on a very tilted playing field.
In this competition the main thing which differentiates schools is the charging of fees, something which immediately defines who gets choice. Fee-charging schools disproportionately snare a middle class enrolment and everything else that comes with these students. This is even the case where fees are quite low. We think that the presence of low-fee schools is somewhat benign, but in their communities they have the same impact.
Legislative differences between schools are also important. By definition most public schools cannot easily discriminate when it comes to the most significant input, enrolled students. Private schools have more flexibility in the extent of their obligations and in the manner of their operation - especially in symbolic hot-button areas such as enrolment and 'disenrolment', discipline and school uniforms.
Jane Caro and I quote an incident when students in a high-fee Melbourne school were tangled up in a drug incident and your premier said it was up to the school whether or not they called the police. Last October it was the turn of Xavier College in the spotlight over some incident. Different premier, similar response.
The way in which schools are funded also has a local impact. Private schools access funds from both government grants and private sources. Most countries which fund private schools won't allow this. We do, and that creates our biggest equity problem. You know about the local impact of having some schools resourced at higher total levels than others.
In this competition the prizes include preferred students and the kudos they bring to the school. You know how this plays out. After a few decades the schools form a hierarchy that has arguably less to do with quality or lack of it, and much more to do with the real impact of a lopsided competition.
The inevitable result is that within each NSW regional centre, for example, there might be anything up to four high academic profile private schools, and one or two equivalent high profile public schools. Struggling alongside these are typically one or two lower academic profile, mainly public schools - often joined by those Catholic schools serving their historical mission to the Catholic poor.
I choose those words carefully: a school which has a high academic profile mayor may not be a good or 'top' school as common parlance or ill-informed journalists might suggest. My presentation is not about good or bad schools.
I can illustrate this hierarchy by graphing the HSC results of NSW inland regional schools. [Slide of column graph school comparisons]
The most prominent are the schools which have the most control over enrolments. You can see how other groups of schools line up in their academic profile. My paper explains units of measurement etc.
Some might argue that any academic difference between types of schools simply shows that some schools, especially private schools, deliver better results. But research in Australia and overseas consistently shows that the ownership of a school - public or private - has little if any influence on the results achieved by students. Most research into such differences properly takes in account socioeconomic status of enrolled students, race/ethnicity, gender, disability, extent of English proficiency, school location and resources.
There is little that is unique about these developing hierarchies. It is happening all over Australia. It is your context also - it is just easier to see in the bush. It is also true that some of this would happen anyway: even large country towns have income and other social divides between suburbs or localities. But we have spent the last three decades adding even more layers.
Escapees from the free-market
Yet this hierarchy is not found everywhere in the bush. Our image of rural schools generally is that they are more remote, more disadvantaged and hence don't have the same academic profile as larger urban schools. But a scan of reports on the HSC and the VCE in the media at the end of each year reveals a number of quite remote schools with a high academic profile.
To cut the longer story in my written paper quite short, HSC data for rural NSW shows that the academic profile of schools tends to increase the further they are away from any competition. [slide of school location and HSC] The quite high profile of schools in the large regional centres is shown on this graph by the first column. The schools closest to these towns, by contrast, have a lesser profile. They have lost many kids to the nearby bigger schools.
But when you get beyond commuting distance you find the profile of the schools increases again. These schools enrol almost all their local children and it certainly shows.
In Victoria the state schools most prominent in VCE rankings seem to belong to two main groups. The first includes many higher SES schools in inner or east Melbourne. These are the schools which Stephen Lamb (2007) shows were best able to capitalize on devolution - the winners, if you like, in the brave new world of the free-market.
More of that later, but the second group includes schools which are located in quite distant rural areas. The first group entered the competitive race already in front, the second were too far away to be affected.
You and I know that the apparent success of these schools is not only due to their location - but in rural areas we certainly have schools which have been denied the benefits of the free-market. Lucky them, and lucky kids. By enrolling all the local children such schools continue to generate not only respectable achievement but also the social capital so essential in their towns.
Our hierarchies of schools
But - most of us didn't escape and our schools find, or are assigned, a place in a vicious hierarchy of schools. True, some of you are where in the hierarchy because you might have or have not done as principals and schools. But most of you are generally where you are because of things happening outside the school gate.
Even a cursory glance at what already passes for league tables reveals that the hierarchies have more to do with sifting and sorting enrolments than much else. In NSW the top of the HSC ladder is dominated by the (ever increasing) academically selective schools, both public and private, followed by (in approximate order) high-fee private schools, then a mix of public schools in middle class areas and lower fee private schools, dominant regional schools, then some more distant rural schools, followed by the rest.
In Victoria the 2005 VCE list of schools shows only 23 public schools in the first 100. These are either located in inner or eastern Melbourne or in the bush. In 2008 there were 20 government schools in the first 100; half of these were rural schools.
Anyone who believes that such rankings are about good and bad schools should look at the hierarchy of private schools. The VCE ranking substantially reflects both the level of fees charged and the socio-economic funding index of the schools. The first 50 ranked private schools in 2005 charged upper end (Year 12) day fees averaging just over $17,000. Fees for the second 50 were around half that. Fees in schools below this top 100 were half again.
If it is fees and subsequent resources, funded both privately and by government, which are buying quality outcomes then all students and schools should be resourced to this extent. At the very least, the role of fees in sorting school enrolments needs to be acknowledged by policy makers and those who get excited about school rankings. If you still think that the VCE hierarchy or even any other league table is a ranking of school quality then you'd have to be quite silly or a tabloid journalist ... or maybe a Minister of the Crown?
You can even identify a positive relationship between VCE scores and the SES index for each Victorian non-government school, as this graph shows. [slide of scatter graph VCE and SES]
I recently compiled two ranked lists ofNSW private schools, by share of high achievers and also by school SES score. Thirty-three of the so-called top 50 schools are common to both lists. The Deputy -Prime Minister is fond of saying that disadvantage is not destiny. We know that; we do our best to make sure it isn't. But it sure seems that advantage sets you up for a very long time.
Of course you are about to get your third selective school in Melbourne. NSW is a lighthouse state for selective schools in the public sector. We have between two and four dozen, depending on how they are defined. And they are now being neatly spread around NSW, as if designed to stuff up as many other schools as possible.
This next graph shows the impact of the establishment of selective schools on other local schools in one location. [slide of Hornsby area schools]
The two newly designated selective schools on the left increased their local share of high achievers, the nine comprehensive schools lost out - along with the low fee private schools. Once again, like so many schools across Australia the place of the schools in this league wasn't achieved - it was assigned.
In response to the assault from selective schools in NSW we now have an outbreak of pseudo-selective schools. Just have a test, throw in the words 'gifted' and 'talented' and you too will get a good slice of the anxious middle class whether not their children are gifted - but of course they all are. We also have, and this is a positive development, an online selective school about to start. Students can stay in their local school AND enroll in the online selective school.
As far as schools generally are concerned there is ample research and information which illustrates the obvious relationship between the achievement profile of schools and the SES profile of the area from which their students are derived. I have countless graphs like this one [slide - achievers and locals in management and professions] showing this relationship, in this case between Sydney urban comprehensive schools' - in effect plotting academic
achievement in the schools against the social class of the catchment.
None of this is about destiny, but which students enrol, and whatever they bring with them to school each day - prior learning, family culture, aspiration...and money - makes a big contribution to the profile and the apparent success of your school. We all know that the difference between classrooms is greater than the difference between schools but [slide of McGaw quote]:
"little of the difference among schools in the educational performance of their students is a consequence of what the schools do; 70% of it is due to whom they enrol."
The problem with education policy is that it devotes all our energies into reforming what schools do but the 'whom they enrol' part is simply ignored. It is too hard or too sensitive. It illustrates the way in which responsibility is poorly shared. It is our job to reduce the gaps between our classrooms and raise the standards of teaching and learning. We are and should be accountable for this. We certainly shouldn't allow school practice and policy to further depress the achievement of significant groups within our schools.
In the same way it is the responsibility of governments to ensure that our framework of all schools does not increase the gaps between our schools and depress, whether in relative or absolute terms, the opportunities for and achievement of students in our more disadvantaged schools and communities.
Just a final point on the data I've used for these graphs. It's all currently available on the web. Certainly it takes a little time to sort some of the data, but all that is about to get much easier, especially in this state. The tabloid journalists are queuing up -but I'm sure we can be assured that they will fully contextualize their reports with caveats and balancing data ... and squadrons of pigs will circle in formation overhead.
The worsening divides
So was the academic profile of schools so divided in the years before we became infatuated with choice and competition? There have been interesting changes in NSW between 2000 and 2007. While it doesn't strictly show a free-market 'before' and 'after' picture, it certainly shows the impact of the recent Howard government period of private school growth. The HSC / VCE understates differences between schools; the low achievers have already left school by the time their cohort reaches the end of their schooling. There are many things which impact on school size and growth or decline, including size of drawing area, population shifts, as well as genuine changes in quality and the impact of school leadership.
In 2007 there were three main groups of secondary schools in the larger regional (multi-school) towns in NSW: private schools, larger
public schools and smaller public schools. [show table]
But seven years previously the smaller schools were much larger - and they once claimed a good share of high test scores. Not any more. The private schools and the dozen larger public high schools increased their share of high achievers - but the smaller high schools not only lost enrolments, their share of high achievers almost halved.
The choice evangelists would hold that obviously some schools improved in this time and others fell behind. Quite possible - but when the free-market forced all schools into a competitive race some were already ahead of the starting line, in particular by serving a higher SES population. Again this isn't unique to rural NSW. Stephen Lamb shows this in great detail in his study of public secondary schools in Melbourne.
This graph [slide of Stephen Lamb graph] shows how enrolment growth in Melbourne secondary schools became most pronounced in higher SES locations. The higher SES public schools were best able to capitalize on de-zoning. They are, of course joined by the schools best able to apply enrolment discriminators, Le. the private schools, some far more so than others.
My study didn't map the profile of students who moved schools - but other studies point to the qualitative as well as a quantitative shift of kids. Stephen Lamb shows that the Melbourne students who commuted away from their local area had a higher academic ability.
The reasons they move are complex, but one of the common threads running through their stories is parental fear of the consequences for their children if they have to enroll with less able/at risk or sometimes just different others in the local public comprehensive school.
This is very obvious in a recent book on school choice written by Sydney University academics. Such fears are expressed in different ways - both overtly and in coded language - but it is real and has substantially driven their school choices. Incidentally, the book, entitled School Choice, is a book about
middle class Australia. That's the nature of choice - some get it, others don't.
The schools that the middle class has left behind have a higher concentration of the most disadvantaged students, with the obvious impact on the academic profile of the school. Some might say 'so what - that's the free-market and choice at work'. If it was free, and if the competition was about quality, one might agree. The problem is that the losers in this lopsided market are our kids. Through no fault of their own they face a huge risk of falling further behind.
The real differences between schools
So what are some of the real differences between schools? Julia Gillard has talked down the differences between school sectors. This table suggests some differences between high academic and low academic profile schools in rural NSW.
I've already referred to the type of school and enrolment trends. What about the profile? Stephen Lamb shows that, after a couple of decades the enrolment profile of schools in Melbourne reveals huge differences. Whatever the category - those needing welfare support, indigenous status, students with disabilities, ESL students - the schools in higher SES areas had fewer of them, the schools in the lower SES areas had more.
Barbara Preston shows the changing ratio between low and high income families in schools. [slide of Barbara Preston quote] In 1996 there was an average of 13 low-income for every ten high income students in our public school playgrounds. Now there are 16 for every ten. The opposite trend occurred in private schools. This gap is increasing.
What I've always found fascinating is that as the data becomes even more convincing we see more the stories peddled to prove otherwise. Government ministers are amongst the peddlers - the Deputy Prime Minister claims it is impossible to say that one sector is rich and the other poor. Notwithstanding variations between schools in any sector, she is simply wrong. I'll put the original table back up.
What is somewhat unique in Australia is the active contribution of governments to these gaps, despite predictions and some protestations to the contrary. When the SES funding of private schools began David Kemp claimed that it would give low income families even greater access to the schools of their choice, encourage greater private investment in education and provide higher levels of funding for the neediest school communities.
He was right about the private investment, but that has compounded the equity problem. His other two claims, in relation to choice and funding the neediest schools have not come to pass. In fact, the National Audit Office has taken the stick to DEEWR, insisting that it needs to find out whether the Kemp claims have been met. We know the answer. But the Howard government and to some extent the Rudd government has continued to use the language of access and equity to link public funding to the expansion of choice.
And keep in mind that the differences shown by the data just shows average differences between schools. The difference in some communities is much greater. You can see the schools which lose the vital resource of aspiring and engaged students and families and have ended up serving an increasingly marginalized enrolment. You can especially see it in the bush where the towns accommodate all social classes. Such divides are on full view.
Why does it matter?
No one should be surprised that the enrolment profile of schools has diverged and why this has happened. Even in the mid 1950s the visiting American educator Freeman Butts predicted that non-government schools would increase claims for state aid and this weaken government schools - strengthening class, religious and social distinctions in Australian society. That future has arrived.
Across Australia such distinctions have made the task of lifting up the bottom - so essential to student success, community-building and even productivity and economic growth - much harder to achieve. Increasingly there is no one at school for the strugglers to look to in order to see how it is done.
This is surely the real story behind the Victorian Auditor-General's report on literacy and numeracy last April ... the gaps widen as kids get older. Getting a better academic balance of enrolments in all our schools is a critical key. The Age last April described Michael O'Brien's efforts to achieve this at Debney Park Secondary College. Amidst all the things he has done this is still one of the critical ingredients.
We really haven't properly considered the impact of under-resourcing the education of particular kids and communities. This impact is always felt in downstream costs in social services, income support, remediation and adult education, and sadly in law enforcement and incarceration. And as Jane Caro constantly points out in this wonderful book [slide of The Stupid Country], we are not tapping into and developing talent, something which is found in
all communities. We'll pay a price for that neglect.
The previous table showing our divided schools also points to other differences, including religion and even race. In my written paper I've mentioned this in a bit more detail, so I'll just say this: at the very least the onus should be placed on advocates for separate faith schools to show, with evidence, that having schools divided on religious lines creates something better.
A few years ago I took evidence to our minister that showed a growing racial apartheid in some parts ofNSW. The words "white flight" mayor may not describe the problem but they certainly describe the political reaction.
Can schools win against the odds?
I want to pre-empt the criticism that is usually directed at what I have raised. Those who point to the need to address issues outside the school front gate are often accused of subscribing to some sort of 'biological social determinism', believing that we can't make a difference against the odds for kids in some contexts and communities.
According to this rhetoric our underachieving kids are simply the victims of our low expectations. Any teacher or principal who believes that they can't lift the achievement levels of their students has no place in the profession.
But perhaps a balancing reality is summed up in this quote [slide of the Tom Bentley quote]:
"In every country there are outstanding examples of individuals and individual schools who overcome the constraints and achieve more highly than their socio-economic status would suggest - (such examples) are often used to 'disprove' the idea that relative affluence fixes your position in life.. ..But they may also be exceptions, which prove the general rule..."
Here is another good quote from the same person:
"Allowing voluntary choices to alter the fundamental structures of educational opportunity in ways which inhibit social mobility will also harm educational achievement overall, and represent a massive long-term cost for any society to bear."
The person who wrote this is Tom Bentley who is now senior advisor to Julia Gillard - it seems that the road to Canberra goes via Damascus. And via Melbourne.
Instead of seeing governments deal with this reality we are bombarded by school reform and countless restructures in public education in every state. The titles alone make you feel all warm and runny: Destination 2010, Schools of the Third Millennium, Choice, diversity opportunity, Renewing our schools. Public education has been born again so many times that one has to question its secular status.
And the slogans: "every child, every opportunity". We don't get every child - and consequently we have to work even harder to make sure that the ones we get have every opportunity.
We need to force the sloganeers and reformers to confront and help us resolve real and pressing issues. The ''yes we can" approach should not only drive what we do in our schools, it should collectively drive us to achieve lasting changes to our wider framework of schools.
Conclusion
The free-market of schools is like that other free-market in one respect - it and the problems it has created won't self-correct. The Prime Minister has talked up the role of the state as regulator, funder and provider of public goods. As far as schools are concerned, the regulating is timid, the distribution of funding is simply bizarre, and the providing of pubic goods advantages some of the public over others. Competition has never lifted all schools for the benefit of all. The ones which lose out don't have to be the worst, or even bad - they just can't compete as easily on a playing field which is tilted against them and their kids. This sort of competition just lifts their most achieving kids out of their classrooms and places them in what parents see as more advantaged schools and circumstances. This not about blaming parents - it is just what happens. We can't keep bridging and widening the gaps at the same time. We have to reverse policies which widen the gaps, policies which mock our rhetoric about equity and support for the poor. In particular we must seriously commit to funding on need - and we need to reward schools which commit to inclusive enrolment practices. Local public schools should be funded so that they become a real and active choice for all families. It won't be easy, especially for a generation of politicians reared on the language and the diet of the free-market. But with a little courage, and a genuine commitment to evidence-based policies and root and branch reform, almost anything is possible. Michael O'Brien's quoted comment in The Age last April brings it home: "I'm looking forward to day," he said, "when people from Treasury come out and say, 'Michael, what exactly do you need to support people in this school so that we can genuinely make a difference?' "
Finally and on a lighter note, I was in Tuvalu a year ago, as you do when you retire. You go to Fiji and turn left, but it's easy to miss. ... and make it snappy. The photo shows us landing, with me in the cockpit, as you also do.
I met a few education officials who told me abut their schools. The brighter students go to a government boarding school on an adjacent island. Those left over go to a private church school located near the dump. My hosts are probably still wondering what I meant when I said that they had the mosr progressive system in the world. ................................................................................................................. Session 4: Rosalyn Black - Building Collaborative Community Networks- “Beyond the Classroom” - book from ACER Press.
- Talked about community partnerships through the lens of her organisation. The Foundation for Young Australians has supported public education for 20 years in Victoria. Set up in 1989 – vision for public education.
- 3 ideas:
- Government schools were a laboratory for really innovative practice.
- They needed more recognition for their work.
- Funding from private funds to add to government funding to support the work of schools.
- FYA was often asked why a private organisation would be in this work, when the government should be doing it. They are not asked that any more – it is now assumed that they are needed.
- Central focus of FYA is on public education, but they are more national now.
- Core goal now is to work towards systemic education reform to make sure that all kids have access to opportunity.
- Create and deliver effective and scalable programs to inspire and challenge students.
- Programs = RU Mad and Cityscape. About best practice in the middle years; student-centred; for those at risk of disengagement. Also PD for teachers.
- Also can help deliver targeted support for schools to improve outcomes. Help to harness outside resources – foundations, e.g. especially in complex and high need communities.
- Schools First program – engage with graduates and with parents.
- Create a platform for young people’s role in changing the education landscape. Participate and lead change – classroom, own school, own community.
- Help schools develop student voice. Are You Mad program.
- Research and build awareness of factors that support schools in daily and things that get in their way. Advocate for policy change in structural barriers that inhibit school’s ability to deliver high quality education.
- Examples:
- Challenge to provide quality school education for all young people is still getting more difficult. Some things are going backwards. Must keep at the policy makers.
- How Young People are Faring report – 2008 – learning and earning are still highly correlated with postcode and SES background. Completing Yr 12 is still most important – even more so now – higher penalties than ever before.
- Any policy agenda must address social disadvantage. We have huge resources that could be leveraged for the good of young people. But it is not happening enough. Our schooling system entrenches inequity.
- A New Federalism in Australian Education: a Proposal for a National Reform Agenda by Jack Keating Highly counter-intuitive, but real. Recommending less competition among schools and among all education providers.
- Schools can’t do it alone. They are the best focal points for improving young people’s wellbeing, but they should not be the only agency doing it. Need to get cohesive action from all parts of society. Community (with a big C) has to come on board. Good time now, as several things lining up:
- agenda across society for cohesive response to social issues;
- realisation that solutions to social exclusion have to be dealt with at the local level;
- awareness that schools can be centres for their local community and bring change;
- growing desire from other sectors for schools to be able to do their job properly.
- One such sector is the community sector. Can provide a range of services that can help improve outcomes. It understands how to improve wellbeing. But it is not always easy to work across sectors – especially in the area of resources and especially in high need areas – e.g. health and nutrition.
- Risk that focus on wellbeing can take over from high quality learning. Need to talk about pedagogy and poverty - how to combine high quality learning with the provision of all the other services that young people need.
- Corporate sector is also a greater possibility now. Has to be done well. Can be an issue that there is a perception that it is the private sector intruding into a public sector responsibility. But there are now lots of corporate people who have the ability to help.
- Partnership is not a panacea. Does not work unless it is done properly.
- Effective partnership needs:
- Purpose must be to improve student outcomes. Can not be a bureaucratic exercise.
- Capacity must be there to respond to local circumstances. Build the capacity of the school to respond to its students’ needs. Mechanism for bringing in the greater opportunities from the Community.
- Trial and promote innovative and next practice. Not about business as usual.
- Well-conceived, well-organised, and properly resourced. Still a trend to seed projects on a short-term basis = drain on school capacity. Trial projects do not work.
- Active involvement and advocacy from school leadership. Must be integrated into core of the school. Won’t change culture.
- Larger question: who else should play a role? Government has a key role to play. State system = maximize effectiveness of partnerships – needs a greater consensus about partnerships.
- Boardroom to Classroom report – talked with Principals – any relationship has to be able to answer: purpose; clear roles; impact of partnership; is it based on best practice and knowledge; does it give the non-school partner a role that it maybe should not have. All said that government should provide more PD about how to develop and maintain partnerships. Equal access is also important.
- Any involvement by other sectors that does not increase equity and access of all young people should not be happening.
- Public hospital system used to be seen as the province of government; now private sector involved; but now there is a league table of hospitals that attract huge funding. Don’t want that in schools.
- Partnerships with community should not be the icing on the cake – should be a collective approach from govt and community in public education – it is everyone’s business.
- Need a national mandate for the development and wellbeing of all young people. Need to be able to sign up to improve young people’s life opportunities.
- Schools would be recognized and rewarded for the degree to which they work with partners to add value to young people’s achievement and life chances.
.................................................................................................................
Session 7: Jeremy Hurley - Yes We Can ... Professionally- What can we do? Who are we?
- He is now working on the issue of resilience.
- Also on optimism – 'yes we can' is optimistic. Need to know what that means.
- Language is so important in optimism – how we feel about things and the future.
- "Our use of language in the present can be a fairly accurate predictor of our success in the future." – Martin Seligman.
- Research shows that Harvard graduates who smile in their photos are more successful later in life.
- One of big gaps in leadership professional development is around professionalism and teaching as a profession. It doesn’t have the same foundation as a profession as the others. What we have done is to go straight to the professional standards – but we need to understand why we are doing them and what for, etc.
- Yes we can, if we have:
- A sense of hope and optimism, which is a major outcome of our
- Resilience, which is predicted by
- A sense of personal control within a locus of control (sense of personal efficacy). (slide5)
- from (Werner, E.E. & Smith, R.S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.)
- We need all these things.
- Teachers talk about being treated like children – so do principals – culture of infantilism at all levels. Maybe driven by our focus on children. Not sure about that.
- Need to move from that to a culture of professionalism – take responsibility for what we do, and are allowed to do that.
- Optimism: what Tim Sharp (The Happiness Institute) talks about is what we say/think about when we are not being optimistic. In the 50s, optimism was about Doris Day. Optimism is when you don’t do the things on slide 6 – don’t take things personally; don’t assume stuff until find out whether it is actually true.
- Slide 6:
- Catastrophising
- Black and white
- Personalising
- Mindreading
- Over-generalising
- Filtering (only hear what you want to hear).
- He talks about the need to move some of these to the positive side.
- Yes we can if … We understand the difference between optimism and delusion and if we know:
- Who we are.
- What we can do.
- How we can do it.
- The Doris day stuff is illusionary; need to focus on the real stuff.
- Who are we? See John Hattie's work on slide 9 – he did not take SES into account, just what was happening in similar schools. 65-70% of the variance is about the students + home + peers/community. 30% = teachers + school. So must include all those in the “we”. We struggle to include those in our work in schools.
- The language we use to talk about it can include or exclude people from the ‘we’.
- We also hear teachers blaming the kids, rather than looking at their own teaching.
- It's also about we- the profession.
- How can we have a sense of self-efficacy if we’re not clear about what we are?
- Do we understand what it means to be a professional?
- Do we have a grown-up profession?
- Do teachers feel more trapped than other professionals?
- What can we do about strengthening the optimism of the profession?
- Medical school has a unit of the course on what the profession is all about – ethics, practices, etc. Also have the issue of the tension around unions. Teachers in government departments – employers are the one body (different in Victoria); hard for teachers to move schools (in SA, have to be there for 10 years). Can lead to people not wanting to be in that school – how can they be optimistic? Need people on board to have optimism.
- Have to be clear about the destination.
- How can we be optimistic about getting there if we don’t know where we’re going? Professional purpose.
- How can we be optimistic about getting there safely if we can’t see the wood for the trees? Professional ethics and practice.
- How can we be optimistic about getting there if we don’t have good drivers? Leadership.
- There is no statement about the professional purpose in teaching; nor a statement about what schools are for. Different groups will have different views on this. The profession needs to take the lead and decide that.
- We actually have a statement about the destination: Melbourne Declaration – it is almost a secret. Not promoted enough throughout the profession and society. Should be overarching every strategic plan in all systems and schools. Not just about NAPLAN! Much more than that. And it’s there for 10 years. Should be posted in every school. Unless we have that, how do we know when we have reached the destination?
- Professional code of ethics and practice. Every profession has this, except teaching (see slide 18). They can not be imposed by an employer – must emerge from the profession. There needs to be a national one. We need to know what we are responsible for and to whom.
- Accountability (slide 20) – the profession is responsible to the profession – critical element. How can we get there? Need resilient, optimistic and responsible leaders, and teachers.
- A Gallup poll of more 1 million employed U.S. workers concluded that a bad boss or supervisor is the Number 1 reason people quit their jobs.
- A Canadian survey (May 2009 by David Aplin Recruiting) of more than 1,600 respondents suggests a lack of trust in senior leaders is the main factor behind their departure.
- Looking for reasons why people quit work. Not done in schools. Lay the blame on the boss / senior leaders.
- What about you?
- What keeps you optimistic in schools? Why would you want to quit?
- What keeps teachers wanting to teach? Why would your teachers want to quit?
- What keeps us resilient and optimistic?
- Often people say that working with the kids keeps them optimistic – gives them energy. Can be a two-edged sword – can keep you there too long – maybe stay for sentimentality rather than for professional reasons. Can then be destructive.
- MindMatters model for resilience – adapted from Bonnie Bernard. See slide 24. Had to experience these relationships from a few people. Not lots. Had to feel they had a voice and feel valued. Research done through the eyes of the kids, but the same goes for teachers and other adults.
- Supportive relationships: 1 of the 2 main reasons for quitting work is lack of acknowledgement. A main reason is that people hit the wall = too high or too low expectations.
- Participation and contribution: Transparent processes and future directions; a sense of personal control (one of two main reasons people quit work). Gives a framework for building resilience. Everyone in the ‘we’ has to be involved in this.
- The language of the profession: “performance management” – horrible term – self-management is the key, but with robust professional conversations. It is better to have “professional reviews” or a “professional preview” – gives more self-efficacy and less of the feeling that it is being done to you - you become part of the solution. Accountability = top down – language of employees; “responsibility” is the language of a professional. – bottom up.
- “Language is a really dangerous thing and must be used carefully. Can destroy people or build them up.” (Jeremy's father).
- Brenda Beatty (slide 29) – three circles with The Zone in the area of overlap. All 3 have to come together to get the zone – that’s where the professional things come into being. All 3 circles need to be in balance in size and must overlap. When one gets too much bigger than the others, how can you change that? Talking about taking responsibility for their own wellbeing.
- Hargreaves – 4th Way. Don’t keep doing things the same way when those ways don’t work.
- Professionalism 101:
- • The chicken and the egg.
- Is respect and status earned or can it be expected?
- Is professionalism an issue?
- If so, whose issue is it?
- The money is not usually the top issue. How can we attract the best people if we don’t raise the status of the profession?
- One problem is that everyone thinks that they know all about teaching, including trainee teachers.
- Leadership. That extends through the school and the profession. We have to be responsible for leadership in our school/profession. Have to show people what leadership is about. Used the L5 Framework. Leadership:
- starts from within.
- is about influencing others.
- develops a rich learning environment.
- builds professionalism and management capability.
- inspires leadership actions and aspirations in others.
- If you put the 5 propositions against the 3 circle framework, it fits - see slide 33.
- Within your locus of control:
- Don’t fight battles you can’t win.
- This is one battle you can’t afford to lose!
- Get over it. Get on with it. Or get out.
................................................................................................................. Session 8: Bruce Dixon - New Ideas to Transform Learning at Your School- Ideaslab.
- Also with the Anytime Anywhere Learning Foundation.
- Are we ready for this? Re-Imagining the Possibilities. New ideas to transform learning at your school.
- Wants to explore ideas and share observations. Working since mid-1990s overseas and locally. Australia is the place to be now – if you are an educator, and if you are interested in new ideas, and the place in Australia to be is Victoria. Need to understand what is important and what really matters.
- Co-founded Computelec in the 1990s.
- Great focus on pedagogy and learning. Governance in Victoria is unique. The technology is unique. Every teacher has had a computer for 5-9 years. Every school has some form of wireless.
- Explore what might be possible – role for ideaslab. Not sure what is possible.
- Need to have more critical conversations with everyone in the wider school community. These are needed to have any form of transformation.
- Most parents don’t use computers. Need to help them understand the possibilities.
- Computers have been around for many years – 30+ years. Not much has really happened with them.
- Showed a Youtube video clip on “help with bowdrill set” - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuFsDN8dsJU - the young person sharing the fact that he is unsuccessful. Processes of learning. Comes to understand how clear he has to be in the instructions that he gives to others.
- Best job in the world advertisement - Queensland tourism. Applicants had to use video to apply for the job, not pen-and-paper. 36,500 videos were submitted.
- Think about the skillset needed for this type of learning.
- What changes with ubiquitous access to ICT?
- Will think about this from a pedagogical point of view, not from a technological point of view. Need to be more critical about what we expect when all children have their own computer.
- It used to be that you went to school to use a computer. Then the ratio changed to be more at home. But still did not know what we could use computers for. ICT has been an adjunct to the curriculum and the resources.
- Immersive ICT will be a reality in the very near future.
- California is moving from textbooks to digital resources – cheaper. But they are just scanning the existing books, and there is no guarantee that every child will have a computer. But the size of his market will force a re-think about what a “textbook” is.
- Must have a level playing field once they leave the school with their laptop – 50-60% don’t have broadband access outside the school.
- Uruguay – every child has their own OLPC laptop. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7068084.stm
- What does this make possible? Not really thought this through yet. Really new ground. Everyone still learning about the possibilities. Many dimensions to these possibilities. Not just about a word processor.
- What is the intersection between ICT and pedagogy?
- ICT increases our pedagogical capacity. But have been bedeviled by access issues. Now can solve that, so watch what teachers can and will do!
- ICT increase our capacity to innovate.
- Ultranet. Conceptually a great idea. http://www.education.vic.gov.au/management/ultranet/default.htm - will help teachers to do their job more effectively. Can now do it, as have not done it in the past.
- Within 18 months, will see the tools that will allow teachers and leaders to admin less and teach more.
- ATSC 21 in Uni of Melbourne. Assessment for the 21st century. Will help increase transparency for whole community and school.
- Have to focus on the positive uses and effects of ICT, not the negative ones (Andrew Bolt et al).
- Douchy’s biology podcasts. Shepparton Biology teacher. http://andrewdouch.com.au/ - puts the facts into podcasts – uses class time for discussion and experiments and reflection.
- Also about building collaboration in and out of school.
- www.xplane.com – see website. Obama raised money using social networks.
- Should be genuinely excited, not frightened. Need to participate.
- Mind on Fire Online – Seely Brown & Adler article. http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon/162420
- Does not have to be complex uses – most are simple. Might have to change the way that schooling looks. Will invigorate our profession. Hesitance at first.
- Personalisation of learning. Learn anywhere anytime.
- Florida Virtual School. 36,000 students. It is not about doing on a screen what we used to do with pen and paper. Need reconceptualisation of learning and teaching.
- Need to present teachers with opportunities and with resources and coaches. Must have a pedagogical revolution.
- Don’t be deterred by the idea of a process of continual change. You can control it.
- ICT is pedagogically-neutral.
- Our goal is for young people to do what they could not do before.
- “My goal in life is to find ways in which children can use technology as a constructive medium to do things that they could not do before; to do things at a level of complexity that was not previously accessible to children” Prof. Seymour Papert 1998.
|
